"Specifically they blamed Neal Westerfield for the computer porn. And I think inferentially for the murder."

MARCUS LAWSON - JULY 3, 2002
Q CAN YOU TELL US HOW MANY DIFFERENT COMPUTER HARD DRIVES DID YOU CHECK?
A I RECEIVED ACTUALLY FOUR COMPUTER HARD DRIVES, ONE REPRESENTING A LAPTOP COMPUTER, AND I'M NOT CERTAIN WHERE THAT WAS INITIALLY TAKEN FROM. I RECEIVED TWO HARD DRIVES THAT REPRESENTED TWO HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPUTERS THAT WERE SEIZED FROM MR. WESTERFIELD'S OFFICE, AND ONE HARD DRIVE REPRESENTING A GATEWAY COMPUTER THAT WAS SEIZED FROM MR. WESTERFIELD'S SON'S BEDROOM.
(So, who can't keep their evidence straight? Tell me again where the Gateway computer was seized from. Westerfield deserves a new trial based upon the INCOMPETENCE and LIES of SDPD. Period!!!!)

..."WE WERE DIRECTED TO A THIRD COMPUTER IN A BEDROOM, WHICH WAS A GATEWAY MINITOWER. WE IMAGED THAT COMPUTER.

WE WERE THEN BROUGHT A LAPTOP COMPUTER BY LIEUTENANT COLLINS, WE IMAGED THAT ONE. AND ALSO A PALM PILOT AND WE IMAGED THAT."
(Chain of custody? Where did Collins recover that laptop? To whom did the laptop Collins recover belong to? Why was Collins collecting evidence?)

(Or was it Duncan, the other Jim who brought the laptop? How many laptop computers were there total?)
A. THERE WERE THE TWO COMPUTERS IN THE OFFICE. ONE COMPUTER IN ONE OF THE BEDROOMS, A FOURTH COMPUTER, WHICH WAS A LAPTOP THAT WAS BROUGHT TO ME BY LIEUTENANT DUNCAN. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WAS RETRIEVED FROM, AND A PALM PILOT ALSO BROUGHT TO ME BY LIEUTENANT DUNCAN.
(You see how easily SDPD gets confused. Two Lieutenants named Jim? Two laptops? Two David Westerfields? Two comforters? Two white sheets? Too many mistakes? Only one theory though!!)

"Specifically they blamed Neal Westerfield for the computer porn. And I think inferentially for the murder."

We noted that two of the video movies, "heikeprev1.mpeg" and "sandra_prevl.mpeg" (screen prints 1 & 2) included the caption for the web page "Lolitasex.com". As with many such "Lolita" sites, this site offers videos and pictures of adult women (18+) posing in "younger" themes and clothing, catering to a "teen fantasy" of prospective customers.

It is important to note that these sites are legal web sites and often carry the disclaimer that all actors portrayed in the site are over 18 years of age with identification on file in accordance with federal Law The exception to the disclaimer being web sites hosted in other countries where this law does not apply. This is not to say that the word "lolita" is never associated with child pornography on the Internet, however, it is fair to say that, for the most part, American .corn web sites featuring the word are legal sites where the participants are over 18 years old.

Lolita.com for instance is in fact an adult web site offering nothing more than links to other adult sites and even carries a disclaimer that the visitor will NOT find child pornography on the page, nor any of it's links. We noted numerous images commonly referred to as "anime" or drawn cartoons of a sexual nature

Most of these involved images of bondage and/or simulated rape. We often (more times than not) find images of anime in pornography collections we have observed.

The fact that the images in the defendants computer portrayed bondage or simulated forced sex is not surprising in that most anime images we encounter cater to a "sci-fi" theme with aliens, monsters and the like.

In other words, the images we observed in the Gateway involving this theme were typical of anime images one encounters in general (screen prints 3,4 & 5) We noted two video files that in our experience, might be the type used by the prosecutors in this case to insinuate a motive on the part of the defendant. "g[1].mpeg" and "nono1.mpeg" (screen prints 6 & 7) involve simulated rape and for the uninitiated, might appear shocking.

Although it is impossible to say regarding these particular videos, many such videos and pictures are in fact staged and the participants willing.

What stood out to us however was that it did not appear that these movie files had been accessed since they were placed on this machine. The screen prints show the date of 12/17/01 as the date the file was last accessed and indeed, when we examined the Gateway pornography files, we noted that for the most part, they all showed both file creation dates and last accessed dates of 12/17/01. This would tend to indicate that the files were placed on this computer on that date and were never subsequently viewed as opening and viewing the file would change the last accessed date. (screen prints 8 & 9)